GOD-DAMNED HYPOCRITES - PART 8
MARRIAGE
One
of the greatest gifts bestowed upon humanity is, we are told, the gift of
marriage. Right from the very beginning (Genesis 2: 20-25), God made man and
woman; two people with their own gifts and abilities that were combined to make
one far more effective whole, each providing things the other lacked. When Adam
and Eve were in the presence of God, they felt no shame because He was a part
of their lives, they did what He asked of them, and He provided all they needed.
It was only when they stopped doing what God wanted and put their own desires
before Him that they discovered the hardships to which their sins would
lead.
Even
today marriages are difficult to maintain, as husbands and wives strive to accomplish
their own desires rather than work together. Through the example of Jesus
Christ, however, God demonstrates the role of a husband and wife: servitude. In
a Christian household, a husband must love
his wife by setting an example to her through servitude, protecting her and
making decisions based on what is best for the family unit, not just himself. A
wife must respect her husband and
not cause him anguish by undermining him or doing what she desires regardless
of what is best for the family unit. Sadly, far too many men are misogynists
who treat their wives as servants, and do as they please, and there are some
women who have no respect for their husbands, doing as they please with no
regard for how this will affect their relationship.
When
Jesus and his apostles speak of marriage (Matthew 19: 3-12, Ephesians 5: 22-33
& Hebrews 13: 4) they make it quite clear that a man should have but one
wife and that their union is sacred; nobody should interfere with a marriage. A
marriage is something between a husband and wife and God. Their union is a bond
and the only reason for any outside intervention is if there is a breakdown in
the relationship between either of these parties, and only then if the
intervention is made to help repair this damage; there may be no other
interference within a marriage.
This
direction applies to everybody outside of the marriage, including relatives of
the husband and wife, as the Bible instructs: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
with his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Ephesians 5: 31). This
means that a husband and wife must make their own way through life together
without the interference of anybody else, including relatives. If they require
advice or support, then this should be provided, but to undermine their
marriage with demands based on human desires is the very essence of a rejection
of God’s authority.
Those
who choose to marry for the wrong reasons are not providing themselves with a
stable foundation for marriage. This is why God warned us through His teachings
and apostles of the importance of choosing the right person as a husband or
wife and not partaking in unGodly relationships that interfere with
marriage. This does not apply merely to
married men and women, but also to the unmarried; sexual immorality is
something to be especially avoided (1 Corinthians 6: 12-20 & 7: 8-9)
because greater sin and hardships will too often quickly follow and cause
people, directly and indirectly, to turn away from God.
Instead,
God instructs us to first discover who we are and only enter relationships in
control of ourselves (1 Thessalonians 4: 1-12).
In this way we do not rush into relationships and make bad choices that
will cause hardship and further sin in the future. It is our duty as Christians
to speak honestly through love when other Christians are acting foolishly with
regards to the sanctity of marriage, especially the young and those who are
easily led astray (2 Corinthians 6: 14-18 & 2 Timothy 3: 1-9). Anybody who
tells them what they want to hear merely enables their sin and does not love
them as Christ instructed.
As
for the issue of gay marriage, there is no issue. State and religious laws are
separate. Christians cannot claim marriage is only between one man and one
woman anywhere but within their own Church. There are some so-called Christian
cults that allow a man to have more than one wife, but by doing so they violate
the instructions of Christ and, therefore, are not Christians. But Islamic law
allows men to have as many as four wives, if they wish, though many are content
with just the one. State law, on occasion, allows for gay unions. This is of no
concern to those who have faith in a religion that disagrees with the practice
because religious law only applies within that religion. Anything otherwise
would be discriminatory.
It
is ironic that so many Christians will complain about discrimination and
persecution, yet are so willing to inflict the same on others. The
Judea-Christian interpretation of marriage is very specific in regards to
requiring one man and one woman (Genesis 2: 18-24, Ephesians 5: 31-33), and the
problems that occurred as a result of one man having more than one wife are all
too apparent when you consider the results of what happened to Moses, Jacob,
David, Solomon and so many others. The Old Testament revealed the problems
associated with imbalance.
A
wife is supposed to provide what her husband lacks and vice versa, like yin and
yang; where one part of a marriage may provide strength in certain areas, it
may demonstrate a weakness in others, and so the other partner may provide what
is missing just as the strength of the first helps overcome their own
weaknesses. In many cases you will find a husband deferring to the wisdom of
his wife, just as she will defer to him if his gifts in those circumstances are
of more use. Quite often a man’s strength is physical, while his wife’s is
emotional, provide him with reason and a means to consider the needs of
others.
If
a man dominates his wife and negates her contribution, he is a fool because he
disrespects the benefits she could bestow, and any respect she may have had for
him will be replaced with fear, and fear, eventually, leads to hate and
resentment. If a man has multiple wives, his behaviour allows jealousy to
corrupt their entire, twisted family, and inevitably harm relationships. The
results are usually disastrous and it is ironic that those who stray from the
teachings of Christ suffer and inflict misery in equal measure. Marriage, then,
seems to work best between two well balanced individuals who love and respect
one another.
The
demand of the gay community in modern Western societies for the right to marry
in churches to a point of forcing Christian Churches to changes the definition
of marriage and the content of the Bible is abhorrent. It is a demand no less
offensive than telling gay people they have to change their personalities and
how they feel, to discard everything they believe and the sacrifice of all
those who came before to ensure they had the right to believe what they do. But
while Christ preached tolerance (John 8: 1-11), He also insisted those who
wished to follow him had to give up their life of sin. The scriptures are quite
clear on the issue of homosexuality (Romans 1: 18-32, 1 Timothy 1: 3-11) and
are quite prophetic because they tie these acts with a corruption of the
gospel.
But
while Christians manage to use the few references to homosexuality to persecute
non-Christians, there seems to be a great deal of hypocrisy at work. The New
Testament mentions homosexuality three times and does so amid a great many
other sins that Christians do not seem overly concerned about violating. They
will turn a blind eye to gossip and slander, and even the Ministry will
participate in that. Others will engage in bouts of drunkenness, envy, hatred,
discord, jealous, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and
some will divorce and marry multiple times yet still find a place in Church
leaderships. Doesn’t the Bible say “What business is it of mine to judge those
outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Corinthians 5:12).
So why is the Church judging non-Christians when it has so many problems within
to address? Why is it so busy denying and then ignoring these, yet so willing
to inflict itself on others?
Christ
spoke of this plank in the eye of those pointing out a speck of sawdust in the
eye of a brother, but this goes beyond. The few references to homosexuality are
used to persecute non-Christians while Churches are rotten, festering with a
canker, a malignant cancer within. Far too many Christians commit these worst
of hypocrisies even as they quote John 8: 1-11 and inflict it on
non-Christians, oblivious to the fact that the message Christ delivered was
directed at those who throw stones as much as to the target.
Today
the issue of discrimination is being used to destroy what little of the
Christian religion remains as a bulwark against the injustice of Western
society, both from within as without. Christ not only preached tolerance but
also demonstrated how difficult it was to follow His teachings (Matthew 19:
16-30) because some vices are hard to leave behind. The fact that so many gay
people seem as determined to force the Christian religions to change what the
Bible contains to suit their desires as so many so-called Christians seek to
force their twisted version of Christianity on non-Christians only demonstrates
how bad the moral and ethical corruption has become (Revelations 22: 18-21)
because the word of God is not something that can be modified to suit our own
agendas (2 Timothy 3: 1-9).
The
demand for Christians to change the Bible to satisfy non-believers is as
discriminating as telling gay people they cannot have a civil union. Should the
same disrespect be forced upon Jewish and Moslem religions? Jewish people
endured the Holocaust for their faith but should they now just do as those who
disagree with their faith demand and modify God’s instructions, and all to
accommodate people who want to either destroy their religion or be a part of
their faith but don’t actually agree with it.
That is insane.
And
yet there appears to be too many Christians who support things that contradict
the teachings of Christ because it suits their needs to conceal their own
hypocrisy or because they do not want the world to call them bigots and
homophobes despite the fact that they are being bigots and homophobes. Although,
the term itself suggests a fear of homosexuality. You don’t have to fear
something to disagree with it. How others chooser to live is nobody else’s
business unless it inflicts injustice on another, such as slander to keep
secrets and oppressive or violent acts forced upon another. Why are the demands
of one group in a society of more importance than another, especially when one
oppresses the next?
The
discrimination against the gay community, as well as women and not-white
people, is not the result of religious rules. They are being oppressed by
hypocrites who use their own twisted interpretation of what is written in ancient
texts in order to satisfy their own self-centred desires and force their own
vile beliefs on others. That being said, the demands and efforts to force
change to texts so fundamental to the religion so it will accommodate the
desires of those who disagree with that religion is as offensive as using a
religion as a means to influence State laws to discriminate against others.
Gay
people cannot be married in Churches because that violates the rules of that
Church. If they wish to marry under State law outside the Church, there is no
issue and they should not be denied this right. Religious laws should never be
allowed to be misused to force individual into a position where their human
rights are violated. The (dis)affected individual should always have the right
to say no. The fact that people are turning away from the Churches and other
religions, where there is an option do so without suffering extreme
persecution, demonstrates just how frustrated people are with the hypocrisy.
Some
time ago, I made the mistake of pointing out that while I myself disagree with
homosexuality, I will not persecute, or enable the persecution of, those that
choose that life-style because this would be wrong, but neither will I
persecute those who refuse to be bullied into supporting any motion that forces
churches to allow gay people to marry in the Church, directly or by standing by
and remaining silent. The arguments against gay couples marrying and raising
children are often offensive because they are nonsense. As long as a child is
cared for, loved and not being abused it makes no difference who raises them,
but what they learn from those who raise them will shape their attitudes and
personality.
But
then one of the gay community attacked what I had said, claiming it was not
enough to simply tolerate homosexuality, but that I had to completely agree
with it and support it without reservations. There are vile, hypocritical zealots
on both sides of the argument. The real concern is where the demands of these
factions will lead. Recently, a politician was ridiculed for his opposition to
gay marriage. Admittedly, he went too far with his comments, revealing himself
to be an ignorant bigot, but he had a very good point that was lost in the
uproar of people who did not want to hear; if we keep moving the line, where
does it stop? More to the point, what will become in society when the influence
of Christian morality and ethics is completely eroded, be it from outside
influence, or the corrupt and hypocritical internal influences?
But
what Churches and other religious institutions fail to realise that marriage
does not occur in isolation from community and social pressures. Marriage and
relationships are not contained within Churches. They are impacted by a great
many other pressures. Our political representatives, for example, are
responsible for a very large percentage of marital failures for the simple fact
that they contribute so much toxic circumstance. Financial stress is a leading
cause of marital failure. The failure of government to provide an employment
positive environment results in limited income, the first step on a path that
can end a marriage.
Families
need money to survive and pursue their dreams. While some people live beyond
their means and are at fault for getting into financial difficulties, others
find themselves in such a position because the live below the poverty line. A
family of five on a combined income of $85K has about $65K left after they pay income
tax. After rent or a mortgage, utilities, the cost of running and maintaining
just a single car, private health, home and contents insurance, and public
transport costs to work, they are left with just $20K to go between them.
That’s $4K per person for the year, or about $11 a day, for food, clothes, and
out-of-pocket costs for school, dental, visits to the doctor and medication,
and other emergencies.
On
top of this, we have politicians on a base salary of $525 a day, plus
entitlements, blaming disadvantaged people for all of society’s economic woes
and insisting they must live within their means even as they tell the same
people to save more for the future. How? They live day-to-day. They have no
means to create jobs because they do not have enough money to participate in
the economy, no means to access supply despite their needs creating a demand.
Only people with money can invest it. The disenfranchised have all these dreams
and images of paradise and prosperity shoved down their throats as they watch
as politicians and celebrities, many horrid individuals, live their dreams,
never having to worry about money.
Parents
struggling to raise their children, to educate them in the hope that they will
be able to extricate their own lives from poverty, must face the daily
heartbreak of having to tell their children that they cannot have certain
things that ‘everyone else has’ because the advertising in the media has
created a false image of the reality where children exist. Resentment,
frustration and depression increase. Psychological issues leading to social
problems. Misdirected anger used by disgusting political personalities to get
into office, blaming minority groups for social problems. The ‘illegal
immigrants’ (refugees, many just women and children). Muslims. Gays. The
unemployed. The ‘leftards’ (Democrat, ALP and Greens voters). Unions. Drug
addicts. Women. Creating an ‘us-and-them’ environment to divide, control and
maintain the status-quo.
All
of this feeds into the culture of a society. It feeds into that entrenched
culture of corruption. It allows us to justify being arseholes to others
because we choose to be ignorant pricks who blame a target created by the
bastards that are causing all the problems. And we allow our children to be
raised in such ill-educated, idiotic ignorance. We create a cycle of misery
from which we refuse to escape. And all of this impacts on marriages. Half of
all hetero-sexual marriages will fail because of this, because we are raised to
be a bunch of self-centred narcissists determined to get what we want with no
regard for the needs and dreams of others. The extra-marital affairs, drug
addiction, and gambling are just three symptom of this, but perhaps the most
destructive result of marital failure is domestic violence and child abuse.
Women
and children are the target for the unleashed rage of frustrated people, not
just those who actually get-off on inflicting physical and psychological terror
on those who cannot defend themselves. The control and power-rush is a release
mechanism for most of them, the suffering of their victims a means for abusers
to exert dominion over others in a world where an abuser is inferior in every
respect. In many cases all that abuse could be avoided if the abuser had access
to a job where their time was spent away from their victims and provided more
financial stability.
But
even in cases where a couple is separated, the abuse can continue in other
forms. Defamatory is one of the most obvious, but using children as weapons or
targets for festering resentment is all too common. The refusal to pay child
support. Preventing a parent from seeing the children with no good reason.
Poisoning the minds of the children. The physical and psychological
vindictiveness of a parent who gains custody and then brutalises the child to
‘get even’ with the absent parent. The turning a blind eye to the abuses of one
spouse by the other due to indifference, drug addiction, psychological collapse
under domestic violence, or even participation. The blaming of a child for the
suffering they endured as a result of the parent’s absence or abuse. And in too
many cases it is a combination.
Marriage
is never about just the couple. Marriage is about a whole slew of issues and
the resolution of these will shape not just the marriage, but the personalities
and relationships of any children it produces as well as those of relatives and
friends associated with the couple. Child abuse is not just physical, and the
idea that it is of no interest to the authorities unless it involves a sexual
component is reprehensible. Marriage is between two people, and nobody outside
this should involve themselves inappropriately, but where there are serious
issues and problems, then positive intervention to resolve this becomes a
necessity.
Children
should never have to suffer for the failures and sins of their parents or
so-called care-givers. Nor should one spouse suffer the abuses of another.
Removing children to non-related care-givers should be a last resort, and they
should never be separated from one another because this only adds to the
trauma, and broken relationships in the years to come. The government spends
millions of dollars every year, and cuts support where it should not, on
intervention. The authorities only bother to investigate a small fraction of
the complaints and even forces many victims to remain silent, and only when
issues become problems.
The
money spent on inquests into failures is staggering, and the recommendations
are rarely adopted so the same problems keep occurring: women and kids dead,
tens of thousands suffering in silence, abuses getting away with it and
continuing to abuse victims for decades. At what point will the government
adopt a form of preventative action, spend money now to avoid greater
financial, social and individual costs when abuse occurs? A minimum wage
increase and basic income to meet the poverty line to relieve financial-stress
is something that could help reduce divorce, domestic violence and child abuse
rates.
But
instead, we have a government hell-bent on using State law to inflict religious
ideologies on folks that don’t participate in that religion. We have a
government determined to reduce minimum wages and penalty rates for the most
disadvantaged members of the working-class, and terrorising the under-class
with limited employment opportunities and threats to cut off welfare that is
already only two-thirds of what is required to meet the poverty line. And for
what? Provide tax-breaks for big business and millionaires by maximising their
profits. The LNP is all too willing to sacrifice the lives of women and
children, and even some men, to line their pockets, and their sycophants are
willing to support them for the promise of nothing more than a few dollars more
and the chance to inflict their vile attitudes on disadvantaged people.
Comments
Post a Comment